D.O.F:15/01/2019
D.O.O:20/08/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.09/2019
Dated this, the 20th day of August 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Nizarudheen Mamoonhi.R
R/at Belekad House,
Near. Subrahmanya Temple,
Nellikunnu, P.O Kasaragod – 671121
Rep. by his Power of Attorney holder
Abdulkhader .K.M, aged 65 years : Complainant
S/o. K Moosa Kunhi , R/at Mooza Manzil,
Bangarakunnu, Nellikunnu, Kasaragod – 671121
(Adv: C. Krishnakumar)
And
1. The Branch Manager
H.D.F.C Bank
Kasaragod Branch
Kasaragod – 671121 : Opposite Parties
(Adv: A.Radhakrishnan)
2. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd
12th Floor, Lodha, Excelus,
Apologies Mills Compound,
N.M Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi
Maharashtra, Mumbai – 400011
(Adv: Saji Isac. K.J)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 Bank for a loan in the year 2012 and at that time the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.1 informed him that he should deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years at their branch and the same will be refunded with 20% interest per annum. Believing this words the complainant deposited Rs . 1,00,000/- and accordingly loan was sanctioned. After the completion of 5 years the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for refund of the deposited amount together with interest. Then the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that he deposited the amount in HDFC life insurance and the same shall be renewed on every six months by paying the same amount . lt is also informed that since the installment was not paid, the policy was lapsed and the complainant Iost the premium amount and interest and the opposite party No.1 is not bound to refund the same. The complainant was working abroad and residing there with his family and did not get any insurance policy or any information regarding the conversion of the FD amount in to an insurance policy. The opposite party No.1 did not give necessary information or obtain any permission from the complainant to convert his FD amount in to insurance policy and there by cheated the complainant .There is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and damages.
Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to opposite party to refund the FD amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs 4,00,000/-.
The opposite parties entered appearance through their respective counsels and filed written versions.
As per the written version of the opposite party No.1, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexations and not maintainable at law or in facts. The HDFC Life insurance Co Ltd is a necessary party in this case. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
It is true that the complainant approached the opposite party in the year 2012 for a Ioan . But all other contentions that the opposite party informed him that he should deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years at their branch and the same will be refunded with 20% interest per annum and that believing this words the complainant deposited Rs . 1,00,000/- etc. are not correct and hence denied. It is submitted that the complainant enquired about a life insurance policy scheme and that insurance is abated due to the nonpayment of installments and the policy already lapsed as per the terms of the insurance policy. There is no misrepresentation of facts, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The complaint is to be dismissed.
Originally there was only one opposite party. After filing of the version of op No.1, the opposite party No. 2 is impleaded as per the order IA No. 49/2019.
As per the version of opposite party No. 2, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the complainant had submitted application for issuance of Sampoorn Samridhi lnsurance Plan for a sum insured of Rs.7,14,132/-for a premium of Rs.97,003/- payable half yearly with a premium paying term of 5 years . The policy was issued to the complainant as required by him in the application form. The Policy was delivered in the address of the complainant on 27.12.2012 by consignment No.ENI 1400393 08 IN of speed post. The policy benefits illustration was also sent to the e-mail of the complainant as provided in the application form. The complainant had also signed and direct debit form for premium payment. The policy is lapsed due to the nonpayment of premium amount as per the terms of the insurance policy and no benefits are payable .
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party .The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs ,as the complainant is not entitled for any relief .
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 are marked and was cross examined as PW - 1. The Ext - A1 is the copy of the Bank account Statement Ext. A 2 is a copy of Lawyer's notice dated. 18.08.2018. Ext A3 is lawyers notice dated .15/09/2018. From the side of the opposite parties, the Manager of the opposite party No 1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. He was cross examined as DW - 1.
The opposite party No. 2 did not adduce any oral evidence but produced certain documents and marked as Ext. B1 to Ext. B6 . The document Ext B1 is the Track Report of Speed Post consignment No. EN 14003938 IN, Ext.B 2 is the copy of the mandate form for direct debit dated 10.12.2012, Ext. B 3 is a copy of the policy Sampoorn Samridhi insurance plan document , Ext. B4 is the copy of application for insurance submitted by complainant ,Ext. B5 is a copy of the e-mail complaint and Ext. B6 is a copy of the e-mail reply.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case, the following
issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that when he approached the opposite party No.1 Bank for a loan in the year 2012, the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.1 informed him that he should deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years at their branch and the same will be refunded with 20% interest per annum. Believing this words the complainant deposited Rs . 1, 00,000/- and accordingly the loan was sanctioned.
After the completion of 5 years the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for refund of the deposited amount together with interest. Then the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that he deposited the amount in HDFC life insurance and the same shall be renewed every six months by paying the same amount. lt is also informed that since the instalment was not paid, the policy was lapsed and the complainant Iost the premium amount and interest and the opposite party No.1 is not bound to refund the same.
The complainant was working abroad and residing there with his family and did not get any insurance policy or any information regarding the conversion of the FD amount into an insurance policy. The opposite party No.1 did not give necessary information or obtain any permission from the complainant to convert his FD amount into insurance policy and thereby cheated the complainant .There is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and damages.
The Opposite party No.1 would admit that the complainant approached the opposite party in the year 2012 for a Ioan . But all other contentions that the opposite party informed him that he should deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years at their branch and the same will be refunded with 20% interest per annum and that believing this words the complainant deposited Rs . 1,00,000/- etc. are not correct and hence denied. It is submitted that the complainant enquired about a life insurance policy scheme and that insurance is abated due to the nonpayment of installments and the policy already lapsed as per the terms of the insurance policy. There is no misrepresentation of facts, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The opposite party No. 2 would submit that the complainant had submitted application for issuance of Sampoorn Samridhi lnsurance Plan for a sum insured of Rs.7,14,132/-for a premium of Rs.97,003/- payable half yearly with a premium paying term of 5 years . The policy was issued to the complainant as required by him in the application form. The Policy was delivered in the address of the complainant on 27.12.2012 by consignment No.ENI 1400393 08 IN of speed post. The policy benefits illustration was also sent to the e-mail of the complainant as provided in the application form. The complainant had also signed a direct debit form for premium payment.
The policy is lapsed due to the non payment of premium amount as per the terms of the insurance policy and no benefits are payable.
Here the complainant did not produce any FD Receipt obtained from the opposite party No.1 to show that the amount deposited was towards a fixed deposit. The opposite parties argue that the amount deposited was not for any FD, but towards an Insurance premium. The opposite parties rely on the documents Ext. B4 is the copy of application for insurance and the document Ext. B2 is the copy of the mandate form for direct debit dated 10.12.2012 submitted by complainant, which shows that the complainant submitted application for insurance policy. The complainant states that no policy document was issued to him .But the document Ext B1 is the Track Report of Speed Post consignment No. EN 14003938 IN would show that the policy document was delivered to him on 27.12.2012. Ext. B 3 is a copy of the policy Sampoorn Samridhi insurance plan document . During cross -examination the complainant admitted that he was aware of the issuance of Insurance policy. The complainant has no case that he had requested for cancellation of the policy within the free look period as provided in the policy document . The CIause 12 of the policy document Ext B3 provides that the insured has the option of returning the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. The opposite party argues that since there is no cancellation within the stipulated time for that, they are not liable to refund the amount.
Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the complainant failed to prove that there is service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite pasties. With the available evidence adduced by the complainant , this commission is not in a position to hold that the complainant remitted Rs.1,00,000/- towards an FD and the opposite party is liable to refund the amount with interest and thereby allow the complaint.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of the bank account statement
A2- Copy of lawyers notice
A3- Copy of lawyers notice
B1- Track report of speed post consignment No. EN 14003938 IN
B2- Copy of the mandate form for direct debit Dt : 10/12/2012
B3- Sampoorna Samridhi insurance plan document
B4- Copy of application for Insurance submitted by complainant
B5- Copy of the e-mail complaint
B6- copy of the e – mail reply.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Nizarudheen M A
Dw1- Jayanth M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
